california convening safety organized practice summary … · 1 california convening safety...

1

California Convening

Safety Organized Practice Summary Report

November 8, 2011

The Process and Elements that made this day a huge success!

Draft date: March 3, 2012

Table of Contents Purpose of the Convening ............................................................................................ 3 What is the Safety Organized Practice Approach? .................................................... 3 Activities and Guiding Questions for the Convening ................................................ 4

Convening Day Agenda ............................................................................................................................... 4

Time ....................................................................................................................................................................... 4

Activity .................................................................................................................................................................. 4

Participants ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

Leadership Panel : Questions & Key Points ...................................................................................... 6

Coaching Panel: Questions & Key Points ........................................................................................... 7

Evaluation Panel : Questions & Key Points ....................................................................................... 8 PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS.................................................................................. 9

World Café Questions & Key Points ................................................................................................... 10

TOPIC #1 SPREAD & SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................ 12

TOPIC #2 - INCREASING PRACTICE DEPTH ............................................................................ 15

TOPIC #3 - IMPACTING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ....................................................... 19

TOPIC #4 - RESULTS WE CAN SHARE ......................................................................................... 23 Participants’ Reactions to the Day ............................................................................ 26 Perceived Learning- Did the convening lead to increased learning of the Safety Organized Practice approach? ...................................................................................... 26

Feasibility of Using the Practice – In what ways does perceived feasibility for implementing the Safety Organized Practice relate to ratings of value, benefit and learning obtained as a result of attending the convening? ............................................ 27 Additional Training and Technical Assistance – What additional supports and training needs were identified by participants after attending the convening? ........................... 27

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 28

Appendices .................................................................................................................. 30

Appendix A: Convening Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 31

Appendix B: Fishbowl Questions ........................................................................................................ 32

Appendix C: Safety Organized Practice Term Sheet ................................................................ 33

3

Purpose of the Convening The goal of the Safety Organized Practice Convening held on November 8, 2011 was to bring together California counties who are implementing (or considering implementing) a coordinated use of Signs of Safety with other risk and safety tools, such as Structured Decision Making®.

The convening was held with the purpose of offering a unique opportunity for counties to share their experiences and results over time with each other and to inform child welfare supportive organizations, showing the participants how public child welfare agencies are expanding their practice to better assess child safety and improved family engagement.

The convening was sponsored by Casey Family Programs and Northern California Training and Research Academy, University of California Davis. The overarching objectives for the convening were:

• To understand the importance of organizational leadership and readiness for successful implementation;

• Identify elements of effective implementation strategies and the critical nature of coaching throughout the implementation process;

• Describe the current landscape of safety and risk assessment practice and current findings from evaluations conducted in California; and

• Explore the issue of capacity building within CWS agencies and within the state

What is the Safety Organized Practice Approach? Child welfare's primary mission is to ensure that children are safe, and that their family and systems of care provide a safe environment free from abuse and neglect. Safety organized practice puts this primary mission at the forefront of every decision and intervention made with a family. The main objectives of Safety Organized Practice consist of:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0icDjCiiUJo/TsQ3EcRj9-I/AAAAAAAAAE4/H9ATynZoq_4/s1600/image_1.jpg


Strategies for the creation of effective working relationships and a shared focus to guide casework among all stakeholders (child, family, worker, supervisor, extended community, etc.). These strategies include facilitated family meetings, the development of family safety networks, group supervision and family finding.

Enhancing critical inquiry and minimizing the potential for bias by workers through a rigorous "mapping" of the safety, danger and risk undertaken collaboratively by all stakeholders.

The development of a joint understanding by workers, families and extended community as to what the attendant dangers, risks, protective capacities and family strengths are, and what clear, meaningful, behavioral changes and goals are needed to create "rigorous, sustainable, on-the-ground child safety" (Turnell, 2008)

Activities and Guiding Questions for the Convening The convening structure consisted of different panels where individuals with experience and/or expertise on a particular topic were asked to respond to previously selected questions. There were three panels in total, the Leadership, the Coaching and the Evaluation panels

Convening Day Agenda

Time Activity Participants

10:00 – 10:15 Welcome and Acknowledgements All

10:15 – 11:15

11:20 – 12:15

Panel Presentation

Leadership Panel

Coaching Panel

(Q&A for 10 minutes at end of each panel)

All

12:15– 1:00 Lunch & Networking All

1:00 - 1:30 World Cafe: Session #1

Topic #1 - Spread & Sustainability

Topic #2 - Increasing Practice Depth

Topic #3 - Impacting Organizational Culture

Topic #4 - Results We Can Share

Signs of Safety 101

10

people/sessi

on

5

Time Activity Participants

1:30 – 2:00 World Cafe: Session #2

Topic #1 - Spread & Sustainability

Topic #2 - Increasing Practice Depth

Topic #3 - Impacting Organizational Culture

Topic #4 - Results We Can Share

Signs of Safety 101

10

people/sessi

on

2:00 - 2:15 Break All

2:15 – 3:15

Evaluation Panel

Q&A from Group

All

3:20 - 4:30 Fish Bowl with Social Workers & Supervisors All

4:30 - 4:45 Group Debrief All

4:45 - 5:00 Closing & Evaluation All


Leadership Panel : Questions & Key Points 1. What made you decide that you wanted to implement the coordinated

approach of Signs of Safety and SDM practices? What were you hoping to accomplish?

• A desire to deepen practice • Wanted to better engage families • Wanted to use SDM tools more “real time” in assessments • Wanted to increase safety

2. What steps did you take to prepare your organization for this implementation?

• Had trainers come in and describe what Signs of Safety is and how it can integrate with SDM

• Created a leadership team to take lead on the implementation. In one jurisdiction this included Early Adopter social workers.

• Created a logic model • Created PDSAs so the implementation could be evaluated • Implemented in one region, or one program only • Worked with Regional Training Academies and used state Operation

Incentive Funds to pay for the implementation • Used coaches - some were retirees, some were known trainers in the area.

3. Reflecting on how it’s gone so far, what worked well about this implementation?

• Social workers are better engaging families • Social workers are using tools to better engage children • Social workers are using SDM more, especially during mapping sessions.

They are seeing the relevance of the tools. • There is an enthusiasm among staff • It’s best to NOT make this implementation mandatory, but to present Signs

of Safety as an additional tool to help social workers with the families that they can use at their discretion.

• Telling stories of success by email and in newsletters has worked well.

4. What has not gone so well? If you could change how you initially approached the implementation, what would you do differently?

• Social workers balked when Signs of Safety was made mandatory. • It’s been challenging to keep the momentum going. • When we started with too big of a group, it didn’t work. Implementing in

smaller groups and then growing the implementation from there works best.

7

Coaching Panel: Questions & Key Points

1. Briefly describe your role in the implementation.

• Coaches participated/attended the training and then were available to social workers after the training to help implement what they learned.

• Some coaches took a leadership role in the county’s implementation efforts.

2. What are the elements in your environment that have allowed for your

coaching work to be successful?

• Social workers knowing us from training or from previously working in the county.

• Coaches being seen as trustworthy and really just there to help • Starting work with social workers right after they were trained - within a

week 3. What approaches have you taken that have been most successful to impact

social work practice?

• Going into the field with social workers to map cases with families and to practice the tools has worked the best.

• Using visual tools, such as laminated copies of the definition of safety. • Spreading stories of success • Facilitating mappings and then later serving as the “advisor” for social

workers who facilitate mapping sessions

4. What have been your biggest challenges?

• Scheduling • Inconsistent use in different areas • Spreading success stories in a timely way through county bureaucracies

5. In your role as a coach, what are your ideas to move forward and deepen

practice?

• Do more coaching in the field • Have monthly meetings/quarterly with county leadership to resolve barriers

and jointly decide next steps.


Evaluation Panel : Questions & Key Points 1. Thinking about the broader landscape of safety and risk assessment, what are

some of the trends and promising practices you are seeing from a researcher perspective?

• There is tremendous enthusiasm about implementing an integrated

form of Signs of Safety and SDM.

2. Can you describe the evaluation efforts that have taken place over the past year with SoS/SDM and share with us some of the preliminary findings: What are we learning? Where are there gaps in the research that need to be filled?

• It’s very difficult to evaluate this implementation because there are so

many variables. • San Diego County created a Logic Model that is very helpful and should be

replicated in any jurisdictions thinking of implementing. • Its critical to think of how you will evaluate the implementation before the

implementation. 3. Can you share with us some of the findings from the evaluation conducted by

Harder and Company in San Diego; you did some evaluation of the first cohort of cases that were mapped…can you share with us those results?

• San Diego used Parent Partners to randomly call hundreds of former

clients to determine how the child welfare intervention went. The responses were surprisingly favorable in the area of family engagement.

• It’s too soon to evaluate how the Signs of Safety/SDM implementation has worked in San Diego County. The numbers of families served by the implementation are small.

9

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHICS Attendees. Most of the participants who attended the one day Safety Organized Practice Convening and who completed the end of the day feedback evaluation form worked in various regions within California (see Table 1). As shown in Figure 1, the participants were distributed throughout the state of California with the greatest number of participants being from Northern California (38%).

Table 1: Regional County Breakdown

Participants (n=77)

Southern California 16

Northern California 29

Bay Area 19

Central California 11

Out –of-State 2

In addition to the spread in location for which the participants worked, there was variability in the type of professional title (see Table 2).

Table 2: Identified Professional Title (n=77)

Manager 26%

Supervisor 36.4%

Director 7.8%

Social Worker 14.3%

Policy Analyst 5.2%

Coaching/Training Specialist 9.1%

Other 1.3%

Most of the participants held professional titles that involved being in a supervisory role, such as a child welfare manager or supervisor (70.2%). There were additional participants in attendance for this convening who did not fill out the feedback evaluation form. These individuals consisted of additional Practice Leaders or Coaches providing in the field training and support as well as staff from Casey Family Programs and the Children’s Research Center.


World Café Questions & Key Points

The convening also held a World Café activity where participants had the opportunity to

move between various tables and meet new people. This activity was intended to spark

discussion with pre-identified “start-up” questions and generate new perspective and

insights. The following topics were chosen to elicit discussions at each table: Spread

and Sustainability, Increasing Practice Depth, Impacting Organizational Culture, and

Perceived Results from Implementing Safety Organized Practice, Respondents

comments were recorded by a designated notetaker. The following tables provide the

questions asked and the participants’ responses.


TOPIC #1 SPREAD & SUSTAINABILITY

Question Themes Example Quotes

What has worked well with the spread and sustainability in your county? If your county has not implemented yet, how would you approach spread and sustainability as you think about implementation?

Coaching:

Coaching and modeling appear more valuable than “training”

Coaches are seen as a neutral party in the home with families.

Visuals help so much.

Better when it’s a co-worker instead of management

Training:

Easier when training comes to them instead of coming to campus or going out of the office.

T4T module working to sustain Creative Ideas:

It doesn’t work to mandate it

Having a champion – create curiosity

Marketing party for integration; look at who partners would be (courts, supervisors, etc.); sent out weekly e-mails including material; logo; staff created bulletin boards

TDM facilitators using SOS language Use of Tools:

Voice of the child comes out and creates value

Social workers have gotten a lot of info from children when they’ve used the three houses

Scaling questions work well Mapping:

Internal mapping a little, then quickly with families – we saw immediate change in how families perceive CPS

Safety mapping at detention

Madera sent six or seven to UCD training. Everyone came back and started using; the rest of us watched and followed. Andrew Turnell training worker was awesome Grass roots implementation effective in Madera, branched out quickly El Dorado: Every Monday we have staffing meetings; helps focus everyone Del Norte has been using for a year; started on front end; helps define the complicating factors, Important that community partners are educated; Sacramento workers become champions, get it out there and work it; Appreciative inquiry within office to spread energy Have SDM definition out; asked workers how it fit Get your own story – know how your team/county works

13


What have been your biggest challenges with spread and sustainability in your county? If your county has not implemented yet what are your worries about spread and sustainability?

Management Issues:

It has to be fluid, not mandated. But if there is no naughty list or accountability, it’s hard to stay voluntary.

Getting supervisors on board

Upper management not really on board yet in some counties.

Worker Issues:

Time and caseloads are the biggest challenges.

Change fatigue, everyone’s willingness to try something new, to go out of your routine, workers are used to their routine with their families’ management.

There are several front line social workers that think it’s too therapeutic and not actual social work.

Relearning the skillful use of authority Implementation Issues:

Some feel implementation is going too slow

Keeping people motivated to continue using tools in practice after training

Having workers have the same level of SofS understanding.

When do we use the tools? Gain an understanding that it doesn’t matter when the tools are used but how.

How can the organic model be outcome based on fidelity?

El Dorado workers just think it is more work for them. Need to get rid of that fear; staff is extremely overwhelmed. There are not enough resources in-house in some smaller counties. Making it daily practice is the hard part once you are back in your office. Counties have different processes in place for safety mapping, nothing set in stone for this process. El Dorado: Children’s attorneys have been a challenge and the legal system in general - complicated factors vs. safety issues



What should happen to resolve these challenges and worries?

Management Issues:

Management needs to spread the enthusiasm to spread this.

Engagement of all levels of staff; it will take time to fully implement.

Time Issues:

Caseload and time need to be there for second and third visits to some families.

Find ways to show staff/supervisors how they can save time

Training Issues:

Training needs to be consistent; when you learn something new it needs to be implemented to follow through or else it gets forgotten.

Training for all levels of staff to increase spread

Coaching is critical for implementation.

Sacramento: We started too big. We regrouped and focused on just one region’s implementation. We made training mandatory but implementation optional and this led to positive results that spread and developed interest. You need to have a plan of implementation.

15

TOPIC #2 - INCREASING PRACTICE DEPTH




How has practice deepened in

counties where the coordination

of Signs of Safety/SDM

practices has been

implemented? If your county has

not yet implemented, in

what ways do you think practice

could deepen?

Mapping

Mapping can provide more ways to ask questions and find more solutions

Questions

Ask the right questions; get energy moving

Questioning complicating factors

Ask the parent exception questions to bring out more information.

Tools

Three houses was simple to start with and use;

Shasta does different fun activities to examine how tools are used and remind why to use them

Family safety circle - makes the family accountable

Using tools in FTM, also in case conferencing

System Benefits:

No more inappropriate referrals screened in

SofS is bringing social work into emergency response. We are getting more information from more parties.

Model process for staff

A way to develop ourselves

Provides safety and security around biases

Critical Thinking Benefits:

Framework aligns thinking

People are thinking more critically

Makes SDM “meaningful” Case Plan & Safety Benefits:

Incorporating danger and harm statements in case plan discussion

Safety planning – deepens practice

Sharpening our ability to clearly identify safety statements.

MDT leads to discussing safety plans more regularly

Using the 3 column map out in the field is happening in Shasta in ongoing units: “It’s beautiful in its simplicity” “Mapping helps with critical thinking. It also teaches family critical thinking skills and shows them they do have strengths. It helps motivate workers.” “It’s a conversation with kids and that’s what social workers want to do” “In cases of people being stuck, it works to do scaling questions, to get everyone’s voices involved and it gets kids to engage.” “SofS does a very good job of helping workers get deeper into the definitions of SDM and increases the reliability of the tools. Workers tend to believe that it makes tools more complete. Many workers are very thankful for the improved interviewing skills.” Sacramento created a tool that unites 3 houses with SDM At the beginning everyone was in shock and had no idea what it was. After getting started, there was a very positive impact with families and staff spreading good words.

Taking it to the family is the ultimate.

17


Are there components of practice that have not yet deepened with the integration? If your county has not yet implemented, what areas of practice do you worry won’t be positively impacted by the integration?

Correct Use of Tools

Skillful use of questions, instead of telling what to do – get family to find solution

Building confidence to do it with families

Know the difference between safety and risk

The danger statement and the harm statement still need polishing.

Case Plans

How to write case plans, beyond merely getting certificates. We need to consider behaviors, do mapping.

Implementation Issues

Not fully infused in every day practice

Worry that a team effort is needed – requires staffing with supervisors, co-workers & family

Worry about impact on foster families – they don’t share the principles. The need the training.

Worry that children are returned home too soon

Morale Issues

Concern that staff feel “Oh great, something else new”

Admin is worried about backlash from staff because already feel overwhelmed

I’m not sure how to bring in the SDM tools. Social workers want to use the tools but it is complicated. We need to build acts of safety into the case plans: What are you worried about? What needs to happen? What is working? Safety Circle needs to spread through the agency at the same time as maps. Social workers are afraid of making mistakes. Staff needs to be given trust to try new things and build confidence. Integration is a long, long process. It will not be complete in one training or even one year.



What do you think should happen to resolve these worries?

Training:

Do training (formal and informal)

Use expertise of Heather, Phil & Raelene

The Academy should make puzzles that show how SofS brings together solution focused questions, Motivational Interviewing, etc.

Coaching:

If you have a coach, use them more

Develop a core group of people who could be coaching

Coaches to show us how to use SDM in court reports

Coaches to help us practice mapping internally

Case Plans:

We need to start any change in case plans: use danger statements.

Use case plans with blanks as a model Administrative Support:

Get managers on board

Get a clearer plan from top down to get coaching within the county

T4T has helped clarify where to start – it helps to identify specific tools/skill sets for each department to make the practice relevant. Don’t give up. Tailor the training to what staff wants. We are at a turning point – we have a need for intensive coaching Services completion does not = safety. We need to move away from compliance driven practice.

19

TOPIC #3 - IMPACTING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE


How has the organizational culture been impacted by the implementation? If your county has not yet implemented, what aspects of the organizational culture do you hope will be impacted and how?

Signs that Culture has been Impacted

Staff has begun seeing the value of SDM; SofS helps connect with SDM and its practical use

More family engagement-oriented

Family and children’s voice are getting into meetings more; the tools help provide the more complete picture to family and support

More efficient, actually gets better outcomes

Family doing the problem solving

Moving away from “remove” then ask questions later; started talking with extended family sooner

We get/develop more critical thinking

Try to think ahead

Court reports contain scaling questions and have discussion with parent about rating and includes in report

Key concept is to look at both sides’ strengths and weaknesses

Families and workers are starting to get used to the culture of SOS

Can see a change in staff. Starting to hear more conversations between staff

Changing culture from individual to agency shared practice

Practice follows through life of the case – allows us to look at the case throughout time and helps identify family issues

Changes the way family views social workers

Allows for complicating factors and building critical thinking

Moves CPS away from being the “authority”

We have seen amazing things with families when we do the danger statements – light bulbs go on with family. SofS has rejuvenated burned out workers. Workers are excited and are sharing with others This shifts us from being case managers to social workers. Transparency has had a big impact on families. It helps staff lay facts on table with less sense of harshness/ judgment. SofS is a learning opportunity; it may not be pretty but you learn more. This is a shift toward safety of child and away from just administering services. This is a change of focus from forensic to and engagement process. It feels like you’re doing actual social work.



Approaches that have worked:

Mapping in unit meetings with social worker and supervisor

Colors on the map that represent SDM and trauma

Designate someone in the room to keep everyone on track SDM/SOS

Make sure to integrate SDM – keep true to the definitions

Small counties – five staff rolled out and they went straight into working with families

Use completed safety house in TDM to bring child’s voice into the meeting

Start out with grass roots to bring back the old social workers’ values

Ask social workers, “what are you proud of with work you’ve done in this case?”

Choose certain cases

Its helpful for workers to see the actual mapping. It affects parents more when kids are involved. We changed our “county” safety plan to an SofS plan which is more realistic for the family and a better chance for family to follow.

21


How has organizational culture stayed stuck, even with the implementation? If your county hasn’t implemented yet, which aspects of your organization culture do you worry won’t change, even with the implementation?

Administration/Leadership

Difficulty getting management involved and taking notice

Try to shift from compliant – check box – to critical thinking

Really trying to change how we are thinking about practice

Challenge: supervisor who won’t come on board

Worried about the supervisor level because SDM roll out went poorly

Training

Mandatory trainings met with some staff resistance

Lack of training and sharing of SOS principles leads to lack of common language; resistance from those who hear SOS but don’t know what it means

Morale

Notion of “not having enough time” is a roadblock to organizational change and acceptance of SofS

Barrier = Social workers not trusting the process, afraid of new things

Push back from employees Stakeholder Challenges

Courts, judges and attorneys are in a different philosophical place

CPS feels that they are only game in town and community feels this way also

Some people not on board and stuck on services to equal change

Supervisors can make or break the movement. There is a challenge of those that won’t budge, who make it difficult but not impossible, and voluntary usually turns into mandatory. 70% who don’t want to do it take up 80% of the energy. How do we support staff to be able to work with the information that the families disclose? They are not psychologists. First we wanted them to write reports and now we want them to get the families to open up.



What do you think should happen to resolve these worries?

Administration/Leadership

Hiring more parent mentors to be SOS coaches; not just “filling vacancies”

Possible inter-county discussion/feedback among management

Key - supervisors and managers buy in and be held accountable

All about parallel process and transfer of learning

Make a priority continuously – consistent commitment to model the practice

Focuses on critical thinking – staff is used to getting the answers

Link all of the initiatives together Training

Implementation of actual plans/mappings; taking action on case maps

Have more on-going workers in training

Re-frame for continuing workers from compliance with services to safety

Focus on natural connections Morale

Continue to challenge staff on all levels

Interacting with other county staff that have faced challenges helps us understand the process and strategies and resources. Management needs to practice with workers if they want workers to engage clients. Coaching has made the most difference. A coach can focus on one piece unlike supervisors or managers, who have to juggle their schedules. Address what the family needs as opposed to what services we happen to have, and build on natural resources. People who say, “I don’t have time” should try it with one case and see what difference that makes. You figure it out as you go. If you put time and energy in the front you save money and time in the end

23

TOPIC #4 - RESULTS WE CAN SHARE


What are the results from the implementation to date? If your county has not yet implemented, what results do you hope to see from this implementation?

Results:

Family Engagement:

Everyone is on the same page

Family has more to say

Family meetings are drilling down to danger statements (including 3 houses, scaling questions, rolling agenda, open, narrow, close)

Has built in more protective capacities within the family

Family finding and engagement enhance capacity of family

Includes the family and in language they understand vs. social work jargon

Increased Safety:

Safety circle – safety network around child

Start filling in safety gaps with mapping

Able to implement more safety plans, more family supports, becoming available

Decreased Workload

Detentions went down

By-pass court, less removals Improved Morale:

Line staff is very excited about it

Hoped for Results:

Increase in worker satisfaction; Social worker feels more comfortable

Focus on family engagement; success in engaging family, partnership with family; Merge with TDMs

Getting families back involved in safety planning in structured way

Focus on interviewing questions and skills

Less removal; By-pass court

Reduce the time it takes to reunify

Want SDM compliance to improve

The scaling questions I ask help parents comprehend what the concerns are. It really involves the family. They can see and understand the worries better. 3 houses impact on parents is huge. ER social worker satisfaction is higher. Their engagement skills are better and they are getting down to the core issues. We hope to give social workers something they like using – getting them back to what they want to do.



Have there been any results that you are worried about? If your county has not yet implemented, are you worried about any unintended consequences?

Timeframes:

FTM’s can last two hours – so labor intensive

ER social workers are not used to longer-term safety planning. They are used to getting in and out.

Networks:

Hardest thing has been to cultivate the support network – especially among friends.

Child Safety:

Not easy to implement safety

Not enough follow-up care with reunified families

If reunification happens too soon, is safety less of a focus – leaving re-entry rates to go up?

SofS not being used thoroughly

Worried about social workers’ naivety - questioning if doing a safety mapping really equals safety

Implementation Challenges:

Will SofS replace SDM unintentionally?

Top 3 findings/challenges in San Diego:

People are now asking for this training; this is new; in past people would not request training

Trained early adopters, sent e-mail blast; key points in book; worked on creating buzz

Now getting feedback that implementation is too slow

I have a hard time getting the support network to the table. Our county does a heck of a job reuniting families. It is keeping them together that concerns us; we are worried about long-term effectiveness. I’m worried about going in with rose-colored glasses and over-focusing on strengths.

What should happen to resolve these worries?

Safety

SDM tools must be used to emphasize “safety ball”

SOS tools paired with SDM does not diminish safety; SDM is focus we won’t lose

ER experience find bringing child’s voice into process has made big impact; says a lot about family

Will not share results without permission of child

Tying in how child is really safe given safety plan

We are trying to stop the hand-offs between workers; workers are more invested in the family

25

Fishbowl Responses

Safety Network Success A social worker worked with a family of a single dad who had two young children. This father had been reported to child welfare several times because drinking and prescription drug abuse. He was a very angry man and it was difficult to engage him in services. The social worker was able to share the Harm and Danger statements with this father and his extended network in a Team Decision-making Meeting. When the father heard the Harm and Danger Statements, the social worker said he was silent. This was the first time he didn’t argue. The father said, “That’s correct. But I didn’t know that my drinking was impacting my kids so much.” From that moment, the social worker started making a Safety Plan with the father and his network of family and friend support. Everyone in the network agreed to protect the kids from the father’s substance abuse. The social worker case managed this family and the safety network for the next six months. She said that everyone was able to protect the kids from the dad’s substance abuse, the father has started on the road to recovery, and the family and extended family is stronger as a result of the intervention.

Three Houses/Safety Houses Success A social worker from San Diego used the Three Houses with two nine-year-old boys who had been homeless and exposed to their mother’s drug use and also to domestic violence between their mother and her boyfriend. These boys typically did not talk much because they are developmentally delayed, they have experienced a lot of trauma, and they have been interviewed by child welfare social workers several times. But when they were given the Three Houses tool, they were able to draw what they were worried about. In their House of Dreams, the boys asked if they could be put in a foster home because they were scared they were going to die because they had no place to live. The Three Houses tool was then used to screen a petition and the boys were taken into protective custody. If they hadn’t have drawn their worries and what they hoped would happen, there might not have been enough information and evidence to ensure the boy’s safety.

Solution-Focused Question Success A worker from Sacramento has been using scaling questions during his investigations. In one situation, he was able to get the mother to see how her substance abuse was impacting her daughter.


Participants’ Reactions to the Day Overall, participants reported that the convening helped foster more understanding of the Safety Organized Practice approach and it was a valuable experience. The majority of participants rated the exercises and topics for each of the panel discussions as being “useful” or “extremely useful” in helping to further understand the Safety Organized Practice approach. The statement, “How would you rate the topics and exercises of the leadership panel in helping you to understand the value and meaning of actually using Safety Organized Practice (SofS/SDM)? received a high number of useful and extremely useful responses (84%). A majority (85.5%) of the participants rated the coaching panel as useful or extremely useful in helping them understand the value and meaning of using Safety Organized Practice. The evaluation panel discussion was rated the lowest with 61.9% rating the discussion as useful or extremely useful in helping to understand the value and meaning of using the Safety Organized Practice approach.

Perceived Learning- Did the convening lead to increased learning of the Safety Organized Practice approach?

Most of the participants positively rated the quality, interest, and learning obtained from the one-day convening. A total of 90.4% of the participants rated that their learning they experienced was “above average” to “excellent” and 86.7% of participants felt that the quality and the interest of the convening was “above average” to “excellent” (see Figure 2). Additionally, respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1=”Not at all interested” to 5=”extremely interested” they were in repeating the convening for themselves or others to attend. A total of 91.5% either were “interested” or “extremely

27

interested”. Overall, it appears that the convening was beneficial in supporting additional learning in the Safety Organized Practice approach.

Figure 2.

Feasibility of Using the Practice – In what ways does perceived feasibility for implementing the Safety Organized Practice relate to ratings of value, benefit and learning obtained as a result of attending the convening? One characteristic believed to influence respondents ratings concerning the value, meaning and learning obtained from the convening was their perceived feasibility for implementing the Safety Organized Practice approach into their work. On a scale of 1=”No way I can do it” to 5=”I can definitely make it part of my work”, respondents rated on average, M=4.36, that they could make Safety Organized Practice part of their work. Only 13.7% reported that it may be less than feasible to integrate Safety Organized Practices into their work. Even with this low percentage, however, perceived feasibility was significantly and positively associated with ratings of the value, meaning, and learning obtained from the convening. In other words, those participants who perceived that they could make safety organized practices a part of their work, were more likely to benefit from and positively rate the convening (see Table 3). Additional Training and Technical Assistance – What additional supports and training needs were identified by participants after attending the convening?

17.10%

13.30%

12%

9.10%

57.90%

48%

34%

58.90%

23.70%

38.70%

52%

31.50%

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

The quality and interest of panelpresentations. (N=76)

The quality and interest of the conveningoverall. (N=75)

The level of collaboration among agencies.(N=74)

The level of learning obtained by attendingthis convening. (N=73) Poor

Fair

Average

AboveAverage

Excellent

“SOP allows social

workers to do the work

that they originally came

to do in the field.”

– CWS Training Specialist


Upon participating in the all day convening, respondents were asked to relay additional training and supports needed to begin or continue implementing a safety organized practice approach. In looking across the comments, those participants who had never participated in a Safety Organized Practice training reported that the topics and activities of the convening were difficult to follow until

they had the opportunity to attend the “SOP 101 Breakout Sessions.” It was also a common theme for larger counties, such as Riverside, California, to relate that it could be challenging to implement trainings in the Safety Organized Practice approach and more assistance was needed in implementing the coaching. For those participants who have been implementing SOP over the past year it was more common for them to request assistance with understanding how SOP and SDM® are combined, additional training support for obtaining management “buy-in” and additional webinars specific to topics of the Safety Organized Practice approach. Additionally, participants who had begun to implement Safety Organized Practices within their county reported the on a scale of 1 to 10, 1=have not yet started to implement and a 10=fully implementing the practice, to indicate their level of implementation and to identify possible areas for training support (see Figure 3). As shown in the figure, 50% of participants reported that they either implemented safety mapping in the office often to being fully implemented. The practice that participants reported as having not yet implemented was making words and pictures with families with 52% stating that they had not started the practice within their agency. Summary

Overall, it appears that the Safety Organized Practice Convening was successful in adding value and meaning to using the Safety Organized Practices and tools and combining these practices with an actuarial risk and safety tools. One lesson learned was that those participants who had not attended training on Safety Organized Practice and/or who felt it was less feasible to implement the Safety Organized Practices into their work, benefited less from attending the convening. A successful outcome of the convening was the opportunity for counties to collaborate, share perspectives, and build a community of practice.

“I am so very grateful to UC Davis for

all of their guidance and support,

everything from coaching to evaluation

assistance has been instrumental in

making SOP a success in our county

over the past year.”

– Program Manager

29

Figure 3.

0.18 0.26

0.21 0.23 0.27

0.16 0.22 0.25 0.29

0.21

0.35

0.52 0.14

0.22 0.25 0.25

0.22

0.31 0.20 0.16 0.18

0.23

0.20

0.24

0.18

0.22 0.21

0.25 0.20 0.20

0.20 0.20 0.18

0.18

0.22

0.15

0.43

0.19 0.27 0.23

0.27 0.29 0.36 0.31

0.33

0.29

0.18

0.07 0.07

0.11 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.02

0.07 0.02

0.09 0.05 0.02

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

We have fully implemented

Implementing often

Implemented a little

Starting to implement

We have not started to implementthis practice


Appendices

31

Appendix A: Convening Evaluation

1. What county and state do you work in?

2. What is your working title?

3. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = “no way I can do it”, and 5 = “I can definitely make it part of my work”, how feasible is it for you to use the safety organized practices in your work?

4. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = “I am more confused now” and 5 = “It is crystal clear to me now”, how would you rate the panelists’ stories in helping you to understand the value and meaning of actually using safety organized practice?

5. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = “Not at all useful” and 5 = “Extremely useful”, how would you rate the topics and exercises from the leadership panel in helping you to understand the value and meaning of actually using safety organized practice?

6. What is one thing you heard a leadership panelist or facilitator say that helped you connect to the value and meaning of this work?

7. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = “Not at all useful” and 5 = “Extremely useful”, how would you rate the topics and exercises from the coaching panel in helping you to understand the value and meaning of actually using safety organized practice?

8. What is one thing you heard a coaching panelist or facilitator say that helped you connect to the value and meaning of this work?

9. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = “Not at all useful” and 5 = “Extremely useful”, how would you rate the topics and exercises from the evaluation panel in helping you to understand the value and meaning of actually using safety organized practice?

10. What is one thing you heard a evaluation panelist or facilitator say that helped you connect to the value and meaning of this work?

11. What is one thing you heard any of the panelists or facilitators say that helped you understand the level of support you have and need to integrate the SofS/SDM practices into your work?

12. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 = “Not at all useful” and 5 = “Extremely useful”, how would you rate the topics and exercises from the World Cafe in helping you to understand the value and meaning of actually using safety organized practice?

13. How would you rate the following:

• The quality and interest of the panel presentations

• The quality and interest of the convening overall

• The level of collaboration among agencies

• the level of learning obtained by attending this convening

14. What technical assistance, training, and/or county supports do you need to use the safety organized practice?

15. On a scale from 1 - 5, where 1 = “Not at all interested” and 5 = “Extremely interested”, how much would you like to see the Convening repeated in the future, either for yourself or others to attend?


Appendix B: Fishbowl Questions

Introductory Question: You guys have been on the front line, using these strategies with families. What has worked well or what has been different since using these tools?

Mapping Tell us about a time when you were working with a family, you felt stuck, and you mapped their case. Did mapping help you to re-engage the family? How? How did your work with the family improve because you invested your time in this activity? What remained challenging? If you could have done it over, what would you have done differently?

Harm & Danger Statements Tell us about a time when you created harm and danger statements to describe your concerns about a family and you shared them with the family. How did your work with the family improve because you invested your time in this activity? What remained challenging? If you could have done it over, what would you have done differently?

Three Houses/Safety House Tell us about a time when you did a Three Houses or a Safety House with a child. How did you explain the exercise to the child? What did you learn from the child? How did your work with the family improve because you invested your time in this activity? What remained challenging? If you could have done it over, what would you have done differently?

Safety Circles/Safety Networks Tell us about a time when you engaged a family’s network to help increase safety in a family. How did you identify the network? How did you get them to the meeting? What plan did the network come up with? Did the plan increase safety? How did your work with the family improve because you invested your time in this activity? What remained challenging? If you could have done it over, what would you have done differently?

Safety Planning Can you tell us about a time when you made a Safety Plan with a family? How did you integrate this into your case plan? What was different about case managing a safety plan than a traditional service plan? How did your work with the family improve because you invested your time in this activity? What remained challenging? If you could have done it over, what would you have done differently?

33

Appendix C: Safety Organized Practice Term Sheet Solution Focused Questions - Solution-focused questions were developed by Insoo Kim Berg and Steven DeShazer and are designed to help a person to think critically about how to solve a problem. The most common solution-focused questions are exception questions, preferred future questions, coping questions and scaling questions. Appreciative Inquiry or The Three Questions - Three questions that drive Signs of Safety practice are “What’s Working Well?” “What Are You Worried About?” and “What Needs to Happen Next?” These questions are the foundation of “mapping” and are useful in any implementation effort. Mapping in the Office - This is a process where a facilitator engages in an inquiry with a social worker, centered around The Three Questions, to critically think through a case and find ways to better partner with a family to increase safety for the children. This inquiry also includes Solution Focused Questions. The information can be arranged in three columns or four quadrants, depending on the preference of the jurisdiction. Mapping with Families - This is a process where the worker engages in an inquiry with a family and the family’s extended network that centers around The Three Questions. This discussion includes Solution Focused Questions and is designed to help families think critically about the harm and danger present in their family, and how they can work together to increase safety. Harm Statement - A Harm Statement is a simple statement that is either created with the family or shared with the family that describes why Child Welfare is involved with the family. The statement is in plain language and follows the formula of “It was reported..... specific detailed actions or inactions by the caregivers..... how that impacted the child”. Harm Statements typically line up with Safety Threats from SDM. Danger Statement - A Danger Statement is a simple statement that is either created with the family or shared with the family that describes what Child Welfare and concerned family members are worried will happen if the parents can’t increase safety in their home. The statement is in plain language and follows the formula of “Child Welfare and ____ are worried..... that specific potential detailed actions or inactions by the caregivers..... could result in potential impact to the child”. Danger Statements typically line up with the Risk Assessment from SDM. Goal Statement - A goal statement is created by the family with the social worker, and describes how they want their family to look when the problem that brought them to the attention of Child Welfare Services is resolved. Goal statements tend to be 2 - 3 sentences long and can by typed onto the first page of the case plan to remind the family and the social worker what they are trying to accomplish in their work together.


Three Houses - Three Houses is a simple tool that can be used with verbal children to explore the three questions mentioned above. Three Houses, created by Nicki Weld, is a drawing activity where children draw pictures or write words that describe their current experience in three different houses: The House of Good Things; The House of Worries; The House of Hopes and Dreams. Safety House - The Safety House was developed by Sonja Parker and is another drawing tool for verbal children that helps the child to describe a household where they would feel safe. More detail about the Safety House is included on your Flash Drive. Safety Network or Safety Circles - This is a Signs of Safety Tool that starts a conversation with a family about identifying people they know who can help them to increase safety for their children. Once identified, this network of individuals is called upon to become an ongoing part of the safety plan for the children. Safety Plan - A safety plan is a plan that describes detailed actions a family and it’s network will take to ensure that the chid is safe. This plan is also presented to the children in language they can understand. A Signs of Safety Safety Plan is a plan that is designed to be a long-term plan. The Safety Plan can be integrated into the California Case Plan and can be used to ensure that the parents build safety for the children, not just attend services.

california convening safety organized practice summary … · 1 california convening safety...

Documents